Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

It is politics. Looking for a judgeship I reckon.
 

I'm intrigued a bit by your view on this. I mean, if I'm not mistaken, it's somewhat uncharacteristically conservative of you, is it not?
 

I'm referring, of course, to ER, and this comment in a previous post:

I oppose "hate crimes" laws. I think it's wise to consider such things in sentencing. But I think they already do that, don't they?
 

I don't think of my view of the law as conservative at all -- or liberal.

Talk to me about policy, and I'll be glad to take a side.
 

On the matter at hand: My gut and heart tell me it ain't right to adjudicate this young man for being a stupid redneck. Clearly, he meant to piss these people off.

But anyone who thinks two white kids in a pickup truck actually can INTIMIDATE however many black folks, in Louisiana from out of state specifically to raise hell about an injustice, doesn't know what intimidation is. It was 2007, not 1957. To assert that two white crackers can cow a group of blacks in such a situation is an insult to the strides blacks have made in this country.

Were I all powerful and on the scene, I would shame those young men to their faces. But then, if the group of blacks turned into a mob, I would turn and protect those two guys FROM them.

This indictment is an act of societal vengeance masquerading as an attempt at justice, a piss-poor one at that, and I'm not buying it.
 

BTW, Sharp: I am not a doctrinaire lib. And until the past several years, I wouldn't even have called myself a lib. Just a Dem. A conservative Dem, at that. The country shifted hard right after 9/11, amd the illgotten war and occupation of Iraq hardened faux patriots' thinking to the point where I dug in my heels to try to save the center, and if that puts me on the left, so be it: the country changed; me, not so much.

Oh, and that's politics.

My thinking on matters of faith, church and religion: That's a trinity of horses of different colors!
 

Totally with you on your remarks regarding the matter at hand (although I may have instead been high-tailing it about the time I saw mob forming. Sorry, but a couple of idiots aren't worth defending at the expense of my daughter and wife).

A fella' of your intellect is considerably more difficult perhaps to just drop a label on, shrink-wrap, and send out the door when it comes to doctrine, I'll admit.

Many shallower types are, though, pretty easy to peg. I guess, rather than horses of many colors, it's more like calling someone a Zebra after seeing enough stripes... (And just who, I say, who is the genius who chose the Ass to be the party mascot?)

From where I sit, I don't know that I perceive so much a shift to the right after 9/11 and the ensuing aftermath, but more a polarization in all directions not unlike a drop of dish soap hitting a sink full of greasy water. For a brief moment, a lot of the grease vacuumed together and unified upon impact of the droplet, but once the ripples formed and moved outward and the chemicals did their 'thang, in the words of ol' Tom Cruise lately, "Whoah, poof, whoosh."

Everyone became more, perhaps, of what they really were all along.
 

ER, you write the following: "But anyone who thinks two white kids in a pickup truck actually can INTIMIDATE however many black folks, in Louisiana from out of state specifically to raise hell about an injustice, doesn't know what intimidation is."

Actually, anyone who doesn't think this is intimidation has no empathy for the history of intimidation of blacks by whites, particularly in the South. I'm not sure why this point is ignored, or elided, as if the numbers were the issue, rather than the race of those involved, and how that goes to an entire history of intimidation, indeed terrorism.

By the way, you write here that you do not support hate crimes legislation, yet in comments on my blog you say you don't know much about them. Please clarify.

As to the situation, and the comment that it's (GASP!) politics. Of course it is! Does that make it wrong? Not necessarily, if one considers the situation in its entirety. A highly volatile racial situation, not made less so by the arrival of firebrands Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. A real community with real grievances becomes ensnared in a complex web of crime, justice, race, in a place with a history in which these issues would have been dealt with in far more gruesome, and efficient, a manner.

In the midst of the swirling media-legal-political-social turmoil, some local brain-deads decide to take it upon themselves to brandish the symbol of exactly how this whole situation would have been resolved just over a generation ago. Excuse me if I wish that these men discover the wonders of a racially biased criminal justice and prison system. While that wish is petty, the more basic truth is this - this act, while perhaps in some theoretical world somewhere, is a "speech act" that is protected by some Constitution somewhere, in the very real, very volatile milieu of Jena, LA and the surrounding evirons, this is a provocation to violence, by whites against blacks (especially those omnipresent outside agitators and uppity colored folks who have forgotten their place) and by blacks against whites who are defending their hard-won, and always fragile, place in a society that, at heart, does not want them.
 

Naaah.

Especially this: "has no empathy for the history of intimidation of blacks by whites, particularly in the South."

Where we split ways fundamentally: History should have nothing to do with whether an act today is a crime today.

Clarification: I don't need to know much about hate-crime legislation to know that I oppose making any crime more criminal because of any expression of "hate" or the consideration of race.
 

Two things about your last comment, in reverse order:
"I don't need to know much about hate-crime legislation to know that I oppose making any crime more criminal because of any expression of "hate" or the consideration of race." By admitting you "don't need to know much about it" shows that, in fact, you don't know much about it. You've bought the false idea that this is a kind of punishment ad extra, as in, first we'll prosecute a person for beating up some poor gay kid, then we'll prosecute him for hating gays.

No.

This is a big. False. Lie. Perpetrated by people who do not believe that bigots should be held accountable for the acts their hatred brings out. For example, in the case of Matthew Shepard's murderers, prosecuting them under hate crimes legislation would have been, perhaps, a lesser added offense to the charge of murder, the way manslaughter is often a lesser added offense. The point is not "hatred" as some vague, fuzzy idea in the vague fuzzy minds of people motivated to commit violence against others because of bigotry. The point is the hatred is the act itself. I really don' know why this is so hard to grasp - it's a simple concept. People commit crimes for a variety of reasons, and are prosecuted for them, with said prosecution attempting to create a narrative not only for the act of the crime, but the reasons, the why, of the crime. Why racial, gender, sexual, or other bigotry is somehow off limits when it lies at the heart of so much violence simply does not make sense to me.

To use an example from a recent Supreme Court case - a pedophile was prosecuted because of fictitious sexual fantasies he had written about a child. His argument was simple - this is protected speech, no one was hurt, the child in question was fictitious, the acts were fictitious, etc. I completely agree. Had it been the depiction of actual criminally prosecutable acts with a real child, it would have been a confession of a crime, and therefore not protected speech. These kinds of distinctions are made all the time in law.

"History should have nothing to do with whether an act today is a crime today." So, the prosecution of those in the south who murdered, beat, and otherwise harassed Civil Rights workers in the 1960's, seeing as this is all history now, are out of bounds. Ditto with Nazi, Japanese, and American war criminals for acts in the Second World War, Vietnam, Korea, and our current Iraqi occupation (well, maybe not that).

How else do we understand criminal law except against the moral background of experience we call history. I'm not talking about an academic subject here, but the living, breathing memory of a community. Law is the historical embodiment of a people's desire to draw lines as to what is and is not proper behavior. This can only be done through an understanding of history, i.e., what is and is not acceptable behavior by the standards of the community at any given time. To argue that, somehow, for some reason not stated, the history of violence against African-Americans should make no difference in how we adjudicate laws which directly effect the life and well-being of African-Americans is just nonsensical on its face. How else do we determine justice except against this background? How else do we seek to redress grievances?

By this same reasoning, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were unnecessary, because they took history in to account in seeking to tip the scales of justice towards a more racially inclusive society. Those who are prosecuted under the various criminal and civil and administrative sections of these laws can argue, using your logic, that history should not be used as a canon for resolving legal issues, but some as-yet-to-be-named-or-determined measure.
 

Do what?

I do not care, and it does not matter, whether one who commits a crime is a bigot. The crime is the crime, not the "why" behind it. If killing a man is not murder, then no amount of hate will make it murder, unless the law says so.

Re, " racial, gender, sexual, or other bigotry is somehow off limits" -- nope. But why should they be given MORE weight?

Re, "So, the prosecution of those in the south who murdered, beat, and otherwise harassed Civil Rights workers in the 1960's, seeing as this is all history now, are out of bounds."

Uh, I expect the less mentally nimble to make such leaps, but I'm surprised that you would. Please. You're not that goofy. If depends on statutes of limitations, and since there is none for murder, that's clearly what you're talking about. Murder should adjudicable as long as the alleged murderer is alive.

Re, the graf that starts "How el;se do we understand ..." I'm sorry, but I meant to be talking about what the law SAYS, not what it should say, or why. I mean, get the law on the books, and prosecute it, keeping equal protection under the law in mind. Equal protection. Race can have nothing to do with that, or it's not equal protection. In criminal law.

Your last graf is another tangent: We were talking about the prosecution of law, not the formulation of it. So the comparison of the use of history fails.
 

Let me be clear, since Geoffrey has mischaracterized why I oppose the idea of "hate crimes" as distinct from other crime, based on an assumption that because I admit to not knowing much about such legislation that I can't have a valid opinion about the topic.


From Wiki:

As defined in the 1999 National Crime Victim Survey, "A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against a person or property motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, gender, sexual preference, or disability. The offense is considered a hate crime whether or not the offender's perception of the victim as a member or supporter of a protected group is correct."

I'm against that.


Also from Wiki:

Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

I'm against that, too. It criminalizes thought. I really don't know why this is so hard to grasp --it's a simple concept.
 

So laws are not things that human beings create through their legislatures, but some kind of abstract thing, the prosecution of which is unrelated to the formulation of the law, the intent of those who created it, and the historical, legal, and moral background against which it was drawn up? The use of a law - a prosecution, for example, to use criminal law - is unrelated to anything but . . . what exactly? The facts of a case to which the law is applied? How does one evaluate the fitness of a charge, then, if not against the background of the history of the law in question (this is what appellate courts do all the time).

I find your claim that I took some kind of cheap and easy shot unfounded. Your argument lends itself exactly to such a claim. Sorry you can't see it, but it's pretty clear to me that is exactly where "We don't need no stinking history" kind of leads.

And the whole "hatred counts more" business is right out of the Newt Gingrich playbook. It's as much a lie as the "they're prosecuting thought!" business. The same that gay rights are about "special right", the same way, 40 years ago (and continually repeated in some parts) that African-Americans want "special rights" and "special protections". This. Is. A. Lie. I'm sorry you don't see that.

If we lived in a society that had no history of racial animosity, that had not infantalized women, completely ignored the existence of gays and lesbians, and sought to remove the native populations through wars that included the use of biological warfare, forced migration (kind of like what Stalin did to the Kulaks, don't you know; Andy Jackson and Uncle Joe, together at last), and the violation of pretty much every treaty ever drawn up with them, then I could be sanguine about such things as hate crimes legislation. On the other hand, our history is quite different; hate crimes legislation is an attempt to insist that violence and intimidation (no matter the numbers involved) rooted in bigotry and hatred of other human beings simply because they are different are outside the bounds of acceptable behavior. They are singled out because there is a history of such crimes being not only tolerated but sanctioned by law.

I could play this game for hours. This is an important issue. You can come over to my place, too, you know.
 

ER said "..It criminalizes thought." Only if it is acted upon, and then it goes to motive, a solid judicial concept.
 

I did not say you could not have your opinion. I said you admitted ignorance, and in so doing, displayed it.

Again - it does not criminalize thought. It criminalizes action. Example. I write a book about taking over the United States. Perfectly acceptable, if bizarre. I take up arms against the government of the United States. That is a crime - called treason.

I sit around and complain about all the Mexicans taking our jobs, running down our wages, buying up cheap housing. I'm a surly bigot. I kill a Mexican because he is a Mexican and is doing one or all of these things, and this is a hate crime. The "hate" is a description of the motive for the crime, not of the mental state or the political opinion of the perpetrator.

Again, why is this concept so difficult to grasp?
 

So, Geoffrey...

Man sees My Wife. Man decides to kidnap her, torture her, and kill her, because that's what he desired to do.

Meanwhile, Another Man sees Black Man. Another Man kidnaps Black Man, tortures Black Man, and kills him the same way Man did My Wife, the only difference being that Another Man hates (insert plural N-word here).

You're telling me that Another Man deserves the injection-he-has-comin' because he hates (insert plural N-word here) sooner than the Man who killed My Wife?

Why does Black Man's family deserve faster justice than I do just because Another Man hated (insert plural N-word here)?
 

OK, SBM, you asked an honest question, and I will do my best to answer it, as honestly as I can.

First of all, to answer the question, we need to be clear about what law is. In the scenario you put forth, your grief, anger, and confusion, while very real and the object of concern, are not the primary reason for prosecuting the perpetrator of the crime. The threat posed by the crime against you and your family is one against the entire community. Justice has been removed from the sphere of the interpersonal and transferred to the entire community; this is shown in the way cases are presented, The State versus The Defendant. Were we atomized individuals, without any ties or bonds of community or history, without the mutualities and compromises involved in living together as human beings in community, this wouldn't make sense. We are, however, and by taking the burden away from individuals, we have moved from vengeance to justice. It is not up to you to exact the price for the crime committed against your family. It is up to the state to prove that the person accused committed those acts, and as such is deserving of removal from society, because of the ongoing threat he poses to the entire community.

I do not believe in the death penalty. Nor do I believe that "bigots should get it first, faster, and harder" as you seem to think. That is as much a rhetorical nonsequitur as the "special rights" nonsense one hears ad nauseum. Both the alleged murderer of your wife and the alleged murderer of an African-American (spurred on by racial animus) deserve removal from society because of the threat they pose. I think we need to be clear about how we are using words, though, before we move forward.

We have been tossing around "hate", "fear", "intimidation", "bigotry" as if we all were using the words the same way, or they should be understood in only one dimension. I think we need to be clear that we are not using these words to describe the thoughts trapped in the minds of individuals, but as socio-political and (now) legal realities that find expression in a host of ways, based on a whole history of the interaction between groups. These words are the description of acts, not of feelings or states of consciousness. Were they the latter, we would be seeking to punish thought. They are the former, however, and we must never forget that these are very real things.

We are only a long generation removed from the victories of the Civil Rights era, and forty years has yet to cleanse over three centuries of vicious racial feelings, expressed in a variety of ways, in our country. African-Americans may fear less, on the whole, the lynch mob, but as the daily target of a hundred small indignities, they are constantly reminded that many still believe them a threat to well-being of the community and in need of removal (in whatever form that may take) simply because of who they are.

Since when is it a special right to feel safe in one's home, one's town, one's county, one's state, one's country, without fear of violence being perpetrated against one simply because of racial or other differences? With the whole bloody history of the 20th century behind us, and more violence in the 21st spurred on by "difference", how can we pretend that we are speaking of emotions here, unconnected to very real acts? With the whole bloody history of race relations, of the suppression of women (including through violence), and the dehumanization of sexual minorities (by pretending they don't exist, as well as violence when they suddenly appear), how can we argue that we are talking about feelings, or the demand for special rights? So often overt acts of violence against oppressed minorities had the passive acceptance, if no frequently the active participation, of state actors; it seems to me quite natural that, as a way of resetting the balance, the state now acts to protect those specifically targeted for no other reason than the color of their skin, the way they worship their God, or who they love. Being protected from the threat of intimidation, violence, and death, based on what can only be called genocidal tendencies seems hardly to be pleading for special rights. It is the very essence, the prime reason the state exists - to protect the entire community from those who would seek to disrupt it through violence.
 

Ah, the cant, the cant. Geoffry, you are a sick apologist for violence. I love this:

this is a provocation to violence, by whites against blacks (especially those omnipresent outside agitators and uppity colored folks who have forgotten their place) and by blacks against whites who are defending their hard-won, and always fragile, place in a society that, at heart, does not want them

I see - violence by whites against blacks is a terrible crime by whtates - as is black on white hate crime, since they're only defending their rights and are provoked - at least if I'm correctly disentangling your inept grammar. What's interesting, of course, in you bringing up the Jena matter - since the black-on-white assault, the only actual crime, was clearly racially motivated, that qualifies it as a "hate crime," and that would argue for augmented punishment, the sort of thing the original charges attempted to do.

"Only a long generation"" sure sounds better than "decades ago" for your pathetic (in the classic sense) arguments.
 

TStockman - you have me exactly right. The history of white on black violence is long, pervasive throughout American society, and given the sanction of law. The history of retributive violence of whites against blacks is short, intermittent, and always to be met by overwhelming force by every state actor possible.

I am not an apologist for violence. I offer an understanding of the different contexts in which racial violence is to be understood.

A rhetorical trick, using that "short generation"? No. A way to give some perspective on the time scales involved. African-Americans have only recently - within my lifetime, made real strides towards full participation in our national, state, and local life. Before that, the entire history of official (through law) and de facto (through the force of social "custom" and "tradition") is one of dehumanization, with occasional outbreaks of outright eliminationist action and rhetoric. The persistent denial, not just of Civil Rights, but of the very humanity of African-Americans is just a fact of American life - an ugly sore that has only recently started to heal up; that healing can be interrupted quite easily.

To pretend that, somehow, we now live in an America where bygones can be bygones, and inter-racial violence can be perceived as existing on some kind of level playing field is to pretend we live in an America other than the one in which we live.

By the way, when was the last time a group of black idiots dragged a white man behind a truck? Burned a cross on a white man's lawn? Hung a noose on a white man's door? When was the last time the police fired forty-two shots in to the body of a white man brandishing a wallet? Or anally raped a white suspect with a plumber's helper, and had their actions defended by the mayor of the largest city in the country?

When was the last time white driver's were pulled over by highway patrols disproportionately to blacks? When was the last time a white man was followed through a department store by employees, fearing shoplifting? When was the last time white neighborhoods were targeted by banks for predatory lending purposes, alcohol sales, and lottery sales?

Are we starting to see a pattern here? Just because there hasn't been a lynch mob in recent memory does not mean black communities are not targeted in other, more subtle but no less intimidating ways, by the majority community. All the blather about "excusing violence", "punishing thought", and "special rights" is meaningless because these realities I have written about are the only real context and lens through which these kinds of laws can be understood. Everything else is just talk.
 

ER bias based cimes of "gender" are chargeable under Federal hate crimes statutes. Thus you wife would be covered as well as you.

GKS, almost everyone of your examples has a "white male victim" counterpart example, and as such would also fall under hate crime laws if indeeed the fact that they were white male, or white or male even were the reason for the act.

All you guys are taking too radical of positions on this. Especially the Vice President of the John Spruce Society. TS, now remember : radical middle of the road. Oh yes, and Mr. Treasurer ER, mind your center line as well.
The memember ship may have to censure you. Oh wait, may not be enough votes to do that. I'll check the constitution.

A good prosecutor can indite a can of tuna. It is the convictions that count and then they can be overturned as well.

There used to be a distinct dejure bias against the black population in America. Such laws have been negated, overturned, over-ruled, but vestages of this system of dualism still linger in effect if not by law. Thus some elements of the legal establishment have promoted hate crime laws as one way to overcome what is now a de facto system. Like Affirmative Action, it is a imperfect solution and can be abused on either side of the equation. The legal principle of motive for an action is not new, and is a solid way to proceed.
 

Yes, I take the radical position. Gladly. Happily. Freely. Without reservation or condition.

When the Klan ruled whole states, in the 1920's, it was, oh, just one of those horrible episodes in American History. When a few urban blacks decided to unite, work together to help inner cities neglected by white flight and the fear of urban violence, and in so doing adopted the rhetoric if not the practice of a militant organization, half the FBI was delegated to bring down the Black Panthers, to the point where some members of the Chicago Panthers were murdered in an illegal entry by agents.

Do we see the difference yet?

One kid gets beat up by a group of black youth, and the entire country holds its breath. A young black man gets dragged behind a pick-up truck in Texas and a white DJ makes a joke about it on a nationally syndicated radio program (granted, he did lose his job; but the comment was still made). When was the last time a group of militant gays beat up a woman because she had the temerity to make a pass at one of them? When was the last time the police had to explain away yet another beating, shooting, abuse of a white person in custody?

You call them examples, drlobojo. I call it a pattern of systemic violence that still exists, bubbling just below the surface. Hate crimes legislation is an attempt to address this pattern. Not examples, not isolated incidents, but more items in the checklist against a power structure and majority populace that simply does not wish blacks to be equal partners with them.

Can it be abused? Of course it can. Can a prosecutor get an indictment against pretty much anyone? Of course. That is why we have these things called courts, and juries - to figure out if the application of the law is correct, if the act in question meets the threshold stated in the law. I will not call the indictment bullshit. If the person so accused is cleared in court - well, that will be that. If found guilty, however, then we understand how far the law stretches. That's the function of courts, to give meat and flesh and fat and gristle to the bare bones of the words on the page.
 

Well, Geoffrey - When was the last time? According to the last complete set of FBI statistics for 2006, blacks are not only disproportionately victims of reported hate crimes, but by a much smaller margin commit a disproportionate share (20.6%) of said crimes. Whites are slightly underrepresented at 58.6%. Of the more serious incidents, There were 2 antiwhite murders versus 1 antiblack murder. There were 3 antiblack rapes versus 1 antiwhite rape. There were 395 antiblack aggravated assaults versus 139 antiwhite aggravated assaults. So no monopolies here. And of course if we go beyond clear hate crimes reported as such to DOJ stats 1975-2006, the black on white stranger homicide rate is 4 times higher than vice-versa, which allows for literally hundreds of conceivable hate crime murders where an aggravating racial bias is possible - sure more than the reported 1 or 2, don't you think? Of course this pales in comparison with intraracial homicide, particularly among young blacks, but I suppose people like you think that if you talk about "provocation", that somehow people only apply that to some sort of vigilante racial retribution. Too bad getting dissed is something more likely to happen in-group than out. Oh, the interracial rape statistics are even more lopsided than the murders, with reported white-on-black rape an extreme statistical anomaly. I understand that every rape is a hate crime. Do you think race ever adds to the gender hatred in committing the rape? Again, not to deemphasize that the overwhelming majority is intraracial.

Look, there is no reason to treat murder, rape, aggravated assault any differently if it is done for reason of religion (which you mention) than offensive speech. They're rights guaranteed in the same way. Do you know what the status is of the three men who dragged the black man to a hideous death? two on death row - one sentenced to life imprisonment. And you complain about a joke - my alltime FAVORITE joke is about the Sabra/Shatila massacres. Lots more dead people there, and I'm not antiSemitic in the broad or narrow sense.

Nobody was holding their breath about the white boy who was assaulted (if he had died, would that have counted as a lynching to you? According to the Tuskegee definition, it would have) - it was the (to me and the protesters) disproportionate charge of attempted murder - I mean, if the 6 guys wanted to kill him, they would have. So they reduced the charges - but the more radical of the Jenazealots wanted them dropped entirely. Where are you on this? Are you willing to say that the punishment for a gang of whites beating a black unconscious because they were offended should be tougher than if a gang of black do it for similar reasons, becuase you share their feelings of historical injustice? I'd like to know how far you would go.

Sorry,DRL - I AM moderate, just immoderate in my pursuit of moderation. I am delighted about or the chance to vote someone like Obama. As with McCarthyism, it will take an Eisenhower - above reproach - to shut down the OTHER kind of race-baiting.
 

Oh, and I do like that "Indict them and let the courts sort it out" attitude. As if there was not a substantial penalty to the innocent who are acquitted. Well, I suppose there's sometimes the civil remedy - nothing better than bankrupting already miserable governments. How much are the Duke lacrosse team members suing for?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

ER wrote, "I don't need to know much about hate-crime legislation to know that I oppose making any crime more criminal because of any expression of "hate" "

Great, so if you park your pickup in the driveway, and it but you forgot to put it in park, and it rolls down the driveway and runs over a 5 year old playing there, we'll be sure to make sure you're charged with 1st Degree Murder, ER. After all, we shouldn't consider motive, right?

We ALWAYS consider motive. Why is this so hard for reasonable and intelligent people to understand.
 

Geoffrey, I think this is way too over intellectualized and over-philosophied [sic] on your part.

Realizing that obviously you use a different source upon which you base your convictions, I can't help but heed Leviticus 24:18-22. I know I'm being trite, and ER, do excuse the literal bent here, but this is pretty plain and simple. It doesn't say, "...a tooth for a tooth, except when...", nor does it differentiate between a tooth and a "toof".

To say that a given sect of society (rather, nearly every sect exceptwhite men) is deserving of a "curved" standard of justice is just downright maniacal no matter how much intellect you inject into your diatribe.

The notion that years/decades/centuries of injustices must (or even can) be repaid by current generations, whom are no doubt more tolerant and accepting as any before them, is not any less ridiculous than the notion that I should be forcing my daughter to withhold a portion of her allowance to be applied towards the national debt.

She had neither anything to do with it, nor the ability to make a difference by participating in such a fashion.
 

I am glad I was out of pocket for so much of this. It looks like it was earnest and, for the most part, respectful -- damn hard for such a explosive issue.

Of course, establishing, asserting and judging motive is part of the prosecution and adjudication of crime.

But I'm against codifying the use of motive based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or because my eyes are brown or I talk with a drawl.

I disagree that criminal laws used to prosecute individual people for crimes against other individual people should be altered in an effort to right past societal wrongs.

I disagree with the fundamental idea of "hate crimes" as crimes against peoples and not just crimes against individuals.

It is not a matter of me not seeing. It's a matter of me seeing, and disagreeing anyway.
 

I wrote the following over at home, and copy and paste here:

I believe I have exhausted my arguments. At this point, I believe peace and an agreement to disagree should suffice?

This is not to dodge criticism. It is to say that I am pleased with all efforts of all parties here. I believe it is time to move on to a puppy post, ER.
 

"I disagree with the fundamental idea of "hate crimes" as crimes against peoples and not just crimes against individuals."

I find it interesting that people can never make a single argument about why a gay bashing shouldn't be punished more than a random robbery w/ assault. The only possible argument is that one believes that the motivation isn't wrong.

I also find it interesting that, in all of the conversations I've ever had with anyone ever about hate crimes laws, the only folks who are against them are straight white guys (even though these laws protect them too). Just an observation.
 

This conversation reminds me of going to work for about my last 30+ working years.

GKS I understand systemic hate, it literally was my business. We can never get rid of it totally. It is innately programmed into our "lizard" brain as the territorial imperative, a fear of strangers, and suspection of differences among other survival genes. What we can do is address the regulations, policies, and laws based on it.

As for the mores, morals, and personal feeling we can only address them as a society in a slow painful proceedure.

One of the biggest lies in academia that I constantly see is that in so and so culture race didn't make a difference. Bullshit, it always has and always will, and if we got rid of it we would focus of other differences say like religion or language or which college you graduated from.
Arguments like this one based on rhetoric and opinions need to be shifted to discussions of principles.


ER, you are aware are you not that "hate cime law" is an international concept that has come late to America?

Want to get rid of hate crimes and the laws to punish them, start with the evening meal, your circle of friends, and who sits in the pew next to you. As it is well known the most segregated hour in America is Sunday morning 11 to 12.
 

Puppies or the like, yes.

Re, "I find it interesting that people can never make a single argument about why a gay bashing shouldn't be punished more than a random robbery w/ assault."

No robberies or assaults are random. One person is robbing another person, or assaulting another person, because he or she is a person who can be robbed or assaulted. There's you a dang start. That's why they call the dang things "crimes against persons."

Re, "The only possible argument is that one believes that the motivation isn't wrong."

That's a fallacy -- noted because you appear to be making an argument -- but someone else is going to have to look up which one it is. Smells like a a plain ol' garden-variety hasty generalization, though. Same applies to the "straight white guys" remark. But you got me there: I confess to bein' a straight white guy (not that there's anything wrong with that). :-)

Re, "ER, you are aware are you not that 'hate crime law' is an international concept that has come late to America?"

Yes.

Re, " ... start with the evening meal, your circle of friends, and who sits in the pew next to you. As it is well known the most segregated hour in America is Sunday morning 11 to 12."

Absolutely -- all habits best dealt with with education and persuasion, not making them criminal offenses. That pesky freedom of association has been mightily curbed, but it is not dead and it is real.

More to the point: Blind justice, equal protection under the law, etc., are ideals.

Admirable and wise social policy are best, and only legitimately, forwarded by legislation or, well, war. Not by either shackling the courts with requirements that they act one way, or forbidding them to act another way, to accomplish certain social goals.

Note: I said nothing about interpretation. I'm talking about legislatures acting to limit, or require specific things, for specific social ends, by the courts. I acknowledge that the scope of judicial action is defined by Congress. I do not agree that it is necesarrily right for Congress to so define judicial scope. There's a reason the post-Civil War amendments to the Constitution are amendments to the Constitution and not mere acts of Congress.
 

ER: There's a reason the post-Civil War amendments to the Constitution are amendments to the Constitution and not mere acts of Congress."
Too bad they didn't work, and then there would be no need for hate crime legislation.

ER you are like an ole dog with the only damn bone in the yard. You just clamp down and growl.
 

ER you are like an ole dog with the only damn bone in the yard. You just clamp down and growl.

Ummmm...Wuf!?

He's got one thigh bone, I've got the other on this one, Doc. Always be leery of the mutt.
 

Sorry so late to this scrabble. Thanks to Geoffrey for presenting the side of reason (sorry, ER - while I admit there can be a fuzzy line here in my thinking, there IS a difference between a murder and a hate crime murder). But Geoffrey (and Alan and Drlobo) have said it all.

Well, okay, I will say this about this:

Another Man sees Black Man. Another Man kidnaps Black Man, tortures Black Man, and kills him the same way Man did My Wife, the only difference being that Another Man hates...

No, that's not the only difference. The other difference is that hate crimes send a message to a whole specific group of people. It is an act of intimidation to a specific group of people.

Hate crimes send a message:

"Your kind aren't wanted or safe here. Your kind will be harassed, beaten and killed here. Stay away, kill yourself or be killed."

That is a different level of crime.
 

DT brings up a valid point. Hate crimes are crimes of terror, no less than the act of flying planes into a building were done to inspire terror. The goal of terror is terror. Terror undermines the faith in the system of laws, the feeling of safety, and of government order. That is why terror is used. A hate crime as an act of terror is over and above the actual act towards the individual(s). ER, do you want to do away with terrorist laws as well.
One more time, it goes to the motive.
 

"That's a fallacy -- noted because you appear to be making an argument -- but someone else is going to have to look up which one it is. Smells like a a plain ol' garden-variety hasty generalization, though."

Great, but then why not make the argument as to why any other motivation should be taken into account upon sentencing, but not this one?

"Same applies to the "straight white guys" remark."

If it's OK to ignore such motivations when someone attacks a person, using those same sorts of motivations must be just fine when attacking an argument, right? LOL
 

I said nothing about ignoring anything. I say: 1., I don't want it codified, partly because it then requires prosecutors to LOOK for such motivation, and the assholes usually find what they look for, whether it's there or not; and 2., I remain unconvinced that an act against a single person can be rightly interpreted, under the law, as a prosecutable act of intimidation against a whole group of people.
 

ER said, "I remain unconvinced that an act against a single person can be rightly interpreted, under the law, as a prosecutable act of intimidation against a whole group of people."

You still haven't take the second step. The hate crime laws are not really designed to protect "individuals" or "groups of people", they are designed to protect the State from the disruption caused by the fear of such crimes among people. Thus the hate crime laws in Uganda were passed and are now enforced not just to protect the Tutu tribesman, but maintain the stability of the State by giving it more tools to use in protecting itself from lack of faith that it can function.

As for another example that you will be more familiar with, how about "Red Lining"? Doe that not quilfy as an...
"act against a single person (that)can be rightly interpreted, under the law, as a prosecutable act of intimidation against a whole group of people."?
 

All laws, ultimately, are in place partly to protect the State.

Redlining! The extension of credit based on anything except creditworthiness is wrong.

Is that what you're referring to?
 

Are we being coy?

"Redlining! The extension of credit based on anything except creditworthiness is wrong."

Or am I just not understanding what you're saying?

I meant "redlining", the illegal practice of using the above rationale to not loan monies or sell insurance, or loan at inequitable rates or terms, or show homes due to the minority race of home owners in a given area.

We are in agreement?
 

Not being coy.

Redlining bad.

Redlining: "Redlining is the practice of denying or increasing the cost of services, such as banking, insurance, access to jobs,[2] access to health care,[3] or even supermarkets[4] to residents in certain, often racially determined,[5] areas. The most devastating form of redlining, and the most common use of the term, refers to mortgage discrimination. The term "redlining" was coined in the late 1960s by community activists in Chicago. It describes the practice of marking a red line on a map to delineate the area where banks would not invest. During the heyday of redlining these areas were most frequently black inner city neighborhoods."
 

It is still going on. Article in NYT Friday.

The Federal laws haven't been enforced much since 1980. Wonder what Obama's administration will do aboput this?
 

I saw Dan's comment this morning, but was nodding off. After a good day's sleep, I wish to respond. First, thanks for the compliment. However, I was not "the voice of reason". The objections are just as reasonable, just a different set of reasons. I honor those differences, and do not see any other motive but seeing the world differently behind the arguments. I take ER at his word when he states his preference for how the law should work in reference to retributive justice - and it is well within a long history of Anglo-American legal thought.

This discussion has been such a wonderful God-send - to have a good old-fashioned disagreement without once descending to name-calling, spitting, hissing, and "I know you are but what am I?" It's such a real treat.

In reference to red-lining - the name comes from the collusion of real estate, banks, and developers who actually drew red lines around neighborhoods, deciding who would live where. New York enacted harsh anti-red-lining legislation in 1970 (even though the Supreme Court had outlawed it, essentially, in the early 1950's) but my parents managed to benefit from the scramble before it was enacted, buying a house most likely worth twice its selling price just a few scant months before the law went in to effect. They had the assistance of an old acquaintance of my father who kept the house "off the market" even though it had been for sale for close to a year. That was one tactic in red-lining - real estate agents would only show certain properties to certain customers.